347

ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2007, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 347–349. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2007.Original Russian Text © I.I. Sudnitsyn, 2007, published in Pochvovedenie, 2007, No. 3, pp. 380–382.

*

The question in the title of this review is far frombeing a rhetorical question. In fact, it is posed by thehistory of soil science. No faculties or departments ofsoil science existed in universities 110 years ago, and,hence, no ecological soil science could exist at thattime. On 1895, V.V. Dokuchaev applied to the Agricul-tural Council of the Ministry of Farming and StateProperty of the Russian Empire with a report “On theOrganization of University Departments of Pedologyand Sciences about Microorganisms: Particularly, Bac-teriology.” One may conclude that the mentioning ofbiological sciences together with pedology in thisreport attests to Dokuchaev’s perception of soil science(pedology) as a science tightly interrelated with biolog-ical sciences, or, in modern terms, as an ecological sci-ence. However, this conclusion is open to argument. Inthe appendix to the report in which Dokuchaev formu-lated his definition of soil as a natural–historical bodyand listed the soil-forming factors, he mentioned plantsand animals (the biotic factor) third after the parentmaterial and climate. He also suggested a list of sci-ences related to pedology, in which biology rankedsixth (after mineralogy, geology, chemistry, physics,and meteorology). As for the effect of soil on livingorganisms, it was not mentioned at all, though, cer-tainly, Dokuchaev knew about the role of soils in thelife of plants and animals fairly well. The first Chair ofSoil Science was organized at Moscow State Universityin 1922; then, it was reorganized into the Department ofSoil Science at the Faculty of Geography. In 1938, thisdepartment was transferred to the Geological Facultyand, in 1949 to the Faculty of Biology. Even after thisreorganization, nobody mentioned soil science as anecological science.

Only 32 years later, when most of the faculties anddepartments of natural sciences of Moscow State Uni-versity had introduced special courses on ecology intheir curricula and when the term ecological (as appliedto geography, geology, chemistry, and other sciences)had become very popular, was this discipline includedin the study courses of the Faculty of Soil Science.What was the reason for the long separation of ecology

*

Karpachevskii, L.O.

Ekologicheskoe pochvovedenie

(EcologicalSoil Science), Moscow, GEOS, 2005, 334 p.

from soil science? From my point of view, we shouldsearch for the answer in the history of Russian soil sci-ence. Before Dokuchaev, soil science was not consid-ered a separate science; it was an applied agriculturaldiscipline. Dokuchaev suggested that pedology shouldbe regarded as a separate natural science having equalrights with mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biol-ogy. This was a radical step forward, and it was not sup-ported by Dokuchaev’s contemporaries. In fact, it isstill a wish rather than reality. Scientific degrees aregiven in physical, mathematical, chemical, and biolog-ical sciences but not in soil science. In the RussianAcademy of Sciences, soil science is included in thedivision of biological sciences. This explains the inten-tion of soil scientists to preserve the identity of theirscience and their fears of being dissolved in the ever-expanding and popular ecology. Only recently, 30 yearsafter the organization of a separate Faculty of Soil Sci-ence and its firm positioning in the system of universityeducation, has it become possible to cooperate and inte-grate on equal rights with ecology. Thus, a new mono-graph by a leading Russian soil scientist and a winnerof the State Prize, Prof. L.O. Karpachevskii, hasappeared in due time. Though some textbooks devotedto ecological aspects of soil science have already beenpublished (e.g., the textbook “Ecological Hydrophysicsof Soils” by the author of this review), they have neverconsidered the problem in its full complexity.

In the preface to the monograph, the author consid-ers it as an attempt to elucidate the current status of soilscience with special emphasis on its ecological aspects.Karpachevskii argues that soil science belongs to thegroup of ecological sciences and that the knowledge ofsoils is intended to help people to improve the effi-ciency of agriculture. At the same time, soil scienceconsiders soil as a component of the biosphere and thenatural base of terrestrial ecosystems. In this context,the ecological meaning of soils comes to the forefrontof modern soil science research. As follows from thesewords, Karpachevskii considers soil science rather thanecology; the latter is only present in the book in theform of particular aspects of soil science. The contentof the book supports this preliminary conclusion.

The author does not specify the notion of ecologicalsciences. From his point of view, these are the sciences

BOOK REVIEWS

Can Soil Science Be a Nonecological Science

*

I. I. Sudnitsyn

Faculty of Soil Science, Moscow State University, Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119992 Russia

Received March 30, 2006

DOI:

10.1134/S1064229307030155

348

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 40

No. 3

2007

SUDNITSYN

that are related to the problems of agriculture, ecosys-tem studies (up to the level of the entire biosphere), andlife on the planet. From my point of view, it would bereasonable to clarify this vague statement and to spec-ify the place of ecology in modern sciences. Indeed, theterm ecology has become very popular; it is used invery different situations without any reference to itsoriginal scientific meaning. We may consider ecologyas a phenomenon of modern life and a specific (ecolog-ical) vision of the world. It is probable that this situationcompelled the author to discuss more evident problemsof the ecological functions of soils. On page 16, hewrites “In the assessment of soil as a natural body per-forming certain ecological functions, we should give adefinition for the notion of soil ecological functions.”According to Dobrovol’skii and Nikitin (1986), theseare the particular effects of soils on living organismsand other natural bodies. We can see that this definitionis quite opposite to the definition of Dokuchaev.Dokuchaev stressed that “soil is a result (function) ofthe actions of other natural bodies,” whereas the notionof ecological soil functions stresses the effect of soilson other natural bodies, including living organisms.

How did it happen that Dokuchaev did not mentionthe effect of soils on other natural bodies? It is evidentthat he knew about this effect. From my point of view,Dokuchaev tried to introduce the notion of soil as anindependent natural–historical body rather than just ahabitat of living organisms and a source of nutrientsand water for them. At present, the notion of soil as anindependent natural body is generally accepted, and itis high time to integrate these two approaches to soiland soil science into a single approach considering soilas the study object of an independent natural scienceand as an obligatory and crucial component of any eco-system (from a particular biogeocenosis to the bio-sphere as a whole). Soil has multiple feedback relation-ships with other ecosystem components, and these rela-tionships are to be studied by ecological soil science. Itshould be noted that one of the pioneers of thisapproach to soil was Academician V.N. Sukachev,under whose supervision L.O. Karpachevskii workedfor many years at the Institute of Forestry of the USSRAcademy of Sciences.

In the discussion of the ecological functions of soils(p. 17), Karpachevskii differentiates them with respectto their nature into physical, physicochemical, chemi-cal, and biological functions. In Table 1.5 (p. 16), hedistinguishes between three groups of ecological func-tions of soil as a natural body: (a) regulation of thechemical composition of other natural bodies, (b) trans-formation of other natural bodies, and (c) regulation ofmatter cycles in the biosphere. He also gives a list ofobjects affected by the ecological functions of soils: thelithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, other bio–abi-otic bodies, living organisms, and the biological andgeological turnovers of substances. In this list, livingorganisms occupy the last place among other naturalbodies. Was it an accidental decision? I think not. In

virtually all the chapters, the effect of soils on livingorganisms is discussed at the end and in a very laconicmanner. Even in the first chapter—“Soil and the Bio-sphere”—only one page is devoted to the role of soilsin the life of plants. Little information about the effectof soil on living organisms can be obtained from chap-ters 2 (“Soil and Parent Rocks”), 8 (“Gas Regime ofSoil”), 9 (“Chemical Composition of Soil”), 10 (“Bio-logical Turnover and Element Cycles in the Bio-sphere”), 13 (“Soil Matrix and Soil Colloids”), 14(“Minerals in Soil”), 15 (“Soil Adsorption Capacity andExchangeable Cations”), 17 (“Dynamics of Soil Chem-ical Properties”), 19 (“Soil Processes”), 20 (“Soil Clas-sification”), and 21 (“Geography of Soils and the SoilCover Pattern”). A more detailed discussion of theeffect of soil on living organisms can be found in chap-ters 18 (“Nutritional Regime of Soil”) and 22 (“TheEcological Role of Soil”). Thus, the major attention inthe book is given to the traditional aspects of soil sci-ence. In this context, the title of the book could bechanged to The Current Status of Soil Science and ItsEcological Aspects in full agreement with the strategicpurpose of the author. However, the title of the book isnot very important in this case. It is much more impor-tant that the new monograph concentrates a huge bodyof factual materials on different fields of soil scienceand considers the newest theories and hypotheses aboutsoil properties and soil processes, many of which havebeen developed by the author. The author demonstrateshis excellent erudition in different branches of soil sci-ence. He poses interesting problems for furtherresearch. The monograph gives a clear description ofcomplicated interrelationships in the soil–lithosphere–hydrosphere–atmosphere–biosphere–anthropospheresystem and suggests new promising ways of the studyof and human control over this system, i.e., its transfor-mation into the noosphere.

A characteristic feature of the new monograph isthat soil properties are considered in it in their dynam-ics; the major attention is paid to the properties that aresensitive to environmental changes, including anthro-pogenic loads. This is especially well seen in chapters17 (“Dynamics of Soil Chemical Properties”) and 19(“Soil Processes”). In chapter 17, the material isgrouped into the following sections: Changes in theBulk Elemental Composition of Soils, Leaching of SoilSubstances, Assessment of Changes in the Bulk Ele-mental Composition of Soil from Data on Differencesin the Soil Genetic Horizons, Changes in the ChemicalComposition of Dumped Rock upon Pedogenesis,Changes in the Bulk Elemental Composition of Soilsupon Their Gleyzation, Humus Accumulation in Soil,Seasonal Dynamics of Soil Humus, Dynamics of SoilpH, Redox Regime of Soil, and Dynamics of Soil Cat-ions. Thus, the major soil properties are shown in theirdynamics and development, and each of these sectionsis well illustrated by rich factual materials.

In chapter 19, Karphchevskii distinguishes betweenfive groups of soil processes: (1) cyclic process, (2)

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 40

No. 3

2007

CAN SOIL SCIENCE BE A NONECOLOGICAL SCIENCE 349

reversible processes, (3) irreversible processes, (4)trending processes, and (5) pseudoreversible processes.He notes that there are no clear criteria allowing one todifferentiate between the notions of (a) soil processesand (b) the dynamics of soil properties. He also sug-gests the following grouping of soil processes withrespect to their scale: (a) molecular processes, (b) masstransfer processes, (c) processes shaping the soil profile(soil-forming processes proper), and (d) processesshaping the soil cover pattern. Then, he gives a detailedclassification of elementary soil processes. Overall, hedistinguishes between 29 elementary soil processes.They are classified into seven groups: (1) biogenicaccumulative processes (humification, humus accumu-lation, the development of dense sod, the developmentof litter, and peat formation), (2) illuvial accumulativeprocesses (clay illuviation, humus illuviation, iron illu-viation, Al–Fe-humus illuviation, and solonetzic illuvi-ation), (3) hydrogenic accumulative processes (salin-ization, gypsuming, iron plating, meadow process, anddeposition of silt), (4) eluvial processes (leaching, fer-rolysis, solodic process), (5) metamorphic processes(gleyzation, segregation, ferrugination, lateritization,and solonetzic process), (6) cryogenic processes (cryo-turbation), and (7) pedoturbation processes (uprooting,zoogenic pedoturbation, and pedoturbation in thecourse of soil tillage). This is one of the most detailedclassifications of soil processes.

The last chapter—“Ecological Role of Soil”—fullycorresponds to the title of the book. It is saturated withfactual materials and includes 13 tables and 2 figures.However, only six of the tables are devoted to plants,and there are virtually no data on animals and microor-ganisms. In this chapter, the author discusses soil prop-erties in different natural zones of Russia and theireffect on the productivity of natural vegetation commu-nities and crop yields. It is emphasized that the ecolog-ical role of soil depends on the particular soil type andon the particular natural zone. For example, an originalidea concerning the development of organic horizons(including dwarf shrubs, litter, and root mats) in tundraecosystems is advanced. It is supposed that the forma-tion of these horizons is an adaptation of the ecosystemto the long-term frozen state of the soil.

The development of pine stands on peat soils is dis-cussed. It is shown that the growth of pine stands uponthe gradual accumulation of peat (the development ofthick peat soils) is only possible while the roots of thetrees reach the mineral soil horizon under the peat layer.As soon as they remain entirely in the peat layer, thetrees die.

The economic, social, and historical role of soils isalso discussed. For example, the author suggests thatthe prosperity of the Vladimir–Suzdal principality,which replaced the Kiev principality as the leader ofancient Russia, was ensured by the high fertility of thesoils in the Vladimir opolie region.

The decrease in the fertility of chernozems upontheir long-term agricultural use is explained by severalfactors. According to Karpachevskii, one of these fac-tors is the substitution of the monoculture of wheat forthe natural biodiversity of steppe vegetation.

In the zone of chestnut soils, under conditions of amoisture deficit and the widespread development ofsolonetzic process, plant roots are much better devel-oped in sandy soils than in loamy solonetzes.

It is interesting that hydromorphic solonchaks,despite their very high salinity, may ensure the growthof halophytic plants with relatively high productivity,both in terms of the total phytomass and in terms of thecontents of proteins and fats. Thus, the efficient use ofthese soils is possible without expensive reclamationprocedures.

The penetration of plant roots into vertic soils takesplace mainly along the old root paths. Soil tillagedestroys these old root paths and, hence, worsens con-ditions for plant growth. Therefore, the minimization ofsoil tillage may be feasible on vertic soils.

This chapter concludes with the following: “Theecological functions of soils ensure the existence ofecosystems in all natural zones and under all climaticconditions. Soil is an ecological guarantor of life on theearth.” It logically follows from these words that soilscience cannot be a nonecological science. I think themonograph under discussion proves this statement in avery convincing manner.